Willis v. Turner

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60707
Summary Calendar
DENNIS GERALD WILLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID TURNER, Superintendent,Southern Mississippi Correctional
Institute; HUBERT JORDAN; JERRY WALLEY;
SHERMAN WALLEY; THOMAS MATHINS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:99-CV-171-PG
--------------------
June 28, 2000
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Dennis Willis (“Willis”), Mississippi state prisoner # 79654A,
filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
alleged that the actions of various prison officials after he was
found guilty of violating a prison rule violated his due process
and equal protection rights and his right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. After granting Willis leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”), the district court dismissed his complaint,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failing to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The district court did not err in dismissing Willis’
complaint. First, Willis failed to state a viable due process
claim because his claim relied on “a legally nonexistent interest,”
his liberty interest in his custodial classification. See Harper
v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). Second, Willis
failed to state a viable Eighth Amendment claim because he failed
to allege that he was deprived of “life’s necessities” or a “basic
human need.” See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.
1999); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995).
Finally, Willis failed to state a viable equal protection claim
because he merely alleged that prison officials punished him more
harshly than an inmate who committed the same rule violation and
failed to allege a discriminatory purpose for the officials’
actions. See Thompson v. Patteson, 985 F.2d 202, 207 (5th Cir.
1993) (absent allegation of improper motive, “mere claim of
inconsistent outcomes in particular, individual instances furnishes
no basis for relief”). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2